W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-w3process@w3.org > November 2018

Re: Call for Consensus (in email) on closing out process 2019, ONE WEEK POLL closing NOV 15th

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2018 14:49:48 -0500
To: Wendy Seltzer <wseltzer@w3.org>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, public-w3process@w3.org
Message-ID: <4283208a-9720-f4f4-ce24-4ed5653680ba@w3.org>

On 11/8/2018 12:32 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>
> On November 8, 2018 12:04:21 PM EST, David Singer <singer@apple.com> 
> wrote:
> >Folks
> >
> >Jeff has gently reminded me that I should have held the process call by
> >now, in order to get Process 2019 to vote by the AC (and review by the
> >AB and team). So, since we didn’t have a call this week (mea culpa)…
> >
> >This is a formal Call for Consensus on 4 questions below. Please
> >respond within 7 days, i.e. by 9am Pacific  on the 15th November.
> >These need to be binary yes/no or approve/reject responses, please.
> >
> >Earlier responses are gratefully received.  Specific concerns, even
> >editorial ones, should be noted in GitHub. (But if you respond to any
> >of these with No, I expect to find somewhere the substantiation of that
> >no, probably as a comment on the Pull Request or filing of a New
> >Issue).
> >
> >There are four roughly independent questions. We have a current draft,
> >and, I believe that there are 3 Pull Requests that are uncontroversial,
> >and good to incorporate this year. For all of them, if there is any
> >significant objection, I think they can be safely deferred. The other
> >Pull Requests seem to need more work.
> >
> >Looking at the remaining Issues, I believe that there are no issues
> >that don’t have Pull Requests that are mature enough and urgent enough
> >to address.
> >
> >The four questions:
> >
> >1) The existing document at GitHub <https://w3c.github.io/w3process/>
> >represents changes that we had consensus to incorporate. However, we
> >have not established consensus that the resulting document should be
> >sent ahead.  A diff with the current process (including, at the end, a
> >summary of changes) can be seen by using the W3C Diff Service
> ><https://services.w3.org/htmldiff?doc1=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2018%2FProcess-20180201%2F&doc2=https%3A%2F%2Fw3c.github.io%2Fw3process%2F>
> >
> >Do we have consensus to send at least the current draft
> ><https://w3c.github.io/w3process/> on to the AB, W3M, and then AC for
> >approval?
>
> +1
>
+1

> >
> >2) Pull Request: Sets the size of the AB to 9–11
> >https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/224
> >
> >The current process enlarges the AB from 9 to 11, a size that might be
> >difficult to fill all the time. This softens that change, saying “at
> >least 9 and no more than 11”, and defines how the elections and so on
> >run to manage that. While we’re in this area, it’s convenient to land
> >this at the same time.
> >
> >Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 224?
>
> 0 (no opinion)
>
I also would put a 0.  Chris' point worries me.  He suggests that we are 
making this unnecessarily complex.  I worry about voting things that are 
complex.  We have not yet recovered from the confusion about STV.  Why 
introduce something that is not thought through?  What are the 
unintended consequences?


> >
> >3) Pull Request: Clarify what the expectations are for advancing to CR
> >https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/214
> >
> >The phrase "Candidate Recommendations are expected to be acceptable as
> >Recommendations” in the existing process has been found in practice to
> >be confusing and even ambiguous. This pull request tries to clarify
> >that.
> >
> >Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 214?
>
> No, as detailed in the issue.
>
I'll go with 0 on this.  I don't see the harm with the additional 
verbiage.  But, it is additional verbiage and might not nail the issue.  
In the end, not everything needs to be explained - some judgement needs 
to be used.


> >
> >4) Pull Request: Clarify maturity requirements for TR updates at the
> >same maturity https://github.com/w3c/w3process/pull/215
> >
> >This is based on, and depends on, 214, which is expected to be merged
> >first.
> >
> >This clarifies that if you update a document already in, say, CR, then
> >the update should meet the CR entry criteria; EXCEPT in the case where
> >you find multiple flaws in a CR, you can update to fix only some of
> >them (even though normally you wouldn’t normally be allowed to enter CR
> >with known flaws), as that’s an improvement.
> >
> >Do we have consensus to incorporate PR 215?
> >
>
> No, because of objections to 214, I haven't re-reviewed.
>
I'll support Wendy's -1.

> Thanks,
> --Wendy
>
> --
> >
> >
> >David Singer
> >Manager, Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer wseltzer@w3.org mobile +1.617.863.0613 
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2018 19:49:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:51:49 UTC